Skip to main content

About your Search

20120901
20120930
STATION
SFGTV 216
SFGTV2 22
KGO (ABC) 7
KPIX (CBS) 4
KTVU (FOX) 4
KBCW (CW) 2
CSPAN 1
KICU 1
KOFY 1
WHUT (Howard University Television) 1
LANGUAGE
English 259
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 259 (some duplicates have been removed)
comment es. do we have public comments? yes, sir, >> my name is ryan thomas i work with the sf puc [?]. >> are ehere for ed's item, that's on the agenda, so, please hold off until then. any other public comments not on the agenda today? okay, thank you. communications? we have several vip reports before us. i think, any questions or comments from the dmition? okay, any public comment on the communications? okay, thank you. other commission business? >> i did want to inquire about the joint pc environment commission meeting and if we're moving forward with that. i have another inquiry about that. if they want to talk about that or make time to talk about that? >> i didn't have any further information. maybe staff has information on that. >> that's correct sir. >> maybe by our next meeting staff could coordinate with the staff from the environment commission and come back to us with a proposed date and proposed agenda items and we can discuss them? >> great. okay, item 6a. madam secretary, would you called item. >> reading. pursuing the san francisco charter, 8b,... between san
program regarding the authorization to the san francisco puc and board of supervisors and adding code 10.10037 2 and 3373 to establish clean power sf fund and clean power reserve fund. * >> thank you very much. colleagues, we have these two items before us. i think these two probably have traveled a long road before coming to us here at the budget and finance committee. we have a number of speakers here today. of course we have ed harrington and his staff from the puc. we will hear from the puc, then office of economic analysis and then our budget analyst report. before we do that i will ask my colleagues if anybody would like to make any opening comments. supervisor campos? >> thank you very much, madam chair. thank you members of the budget committee. my apologies to you and members of the public for being late. i appreciate the brief recess. supervisor wiener and i have been coming back from the metropolitan transportation commission, where we ready the city and county of san francisco. first in terms -- there are some amendments to the resolution that is before you authorizing the pu
of preapprenticeship programs and helped changed lives of any economically disadvantaged rez tends. puc s*efszs chlg alameda, san francisco ap ri. san francisco count i city build acadly, san juak=quin, san mateo s job trainnig program. this is for you. [applause] >> thank you. i don't get by with without a shake: >> [inaudible]. >> i puc stead build, almost 3 years ago, city build brought me over, and american ... i had the great privilege of working on the puc buildings. we put a great number of san francisco red dents to work. it was very, very, gratifying for the individuals here in san francisco who needed that work. in the last 2 years or last year, i i have been working in the regent, and over this period of time, city build academy, over 500 graduates. and they eighth ifr started careers with the projects or worked with the projected. my es steels colleagues say this is a life changer, and we aappreciate your leadership, we look forward to working with your predecessor. [laughter] i mean, successor. >> mr. harrington, puc is a great place to work for. economy had a downturn, you gave t
for the puc, which is why i'm going to obviously supporting those amendments. for me, colleagues, i think at the end of the day it really comes down to the consumer. if we can make this a way, i don't think it is the right thing to do to hoist on consumers an increase of 20, 30% higher energy rates, and really an opt out program. we can have debate whether we think that's a decision people make but if we're excluding low income folks we talked about sros and seniors there will be people vulnerable who will be paying higher rates unbeknownst to them. this has come out in the spam e-mails we've gotten from different agencies, the notion of creating local green energy. this is something i absolutely support as well but the premise and the numbers just don't add up right now. we are increasing energy rates by between 20 and 30% right now, to create what is a break-even program here in san francisco. and that's fine. but i sat down with -- who runs our public finance program yesterday to understand what is our capability in san francisco for puc to bond against in order to raise enough money i
we know this is a reappointment. thank you so much for your 15 years of service on the puc commission. i think we're all familiar with your background and work. but if you want to speak briefly to some of the work you've engaged in as a commissioner and what you would like to prioritize in your next term on the puc commission. >> yes, that's true, i have served 15 years. four years as president. and i want to add, too, that i have worked with seven different general managers, which has taught me a lot of flexibility. but, today, i wanted to talk about, today and tomorrow, and today really is about last tuesday, when we had the groundbreaking of the sutro reservoir. this is the last project for the sutro program. i sat there and had great pride that we are all here, looking at history. they'll look back and say these are the people that put in this new system, not only in the city, but a regional city, that will be here for a hundred years. and i think, gee, in the year 3012, i can see the commission saying, subject it abou isn't io redo the system. that's very exciting. tal
to be included in the initial marketing of the program and added to page 16 puc shall not commit to buy power from shell unless customers to ensure the viability of the program as decided by the puc commission have indicated desire to be included in the initial marketing of the program. that to me, colleagues, is something that i think is super important, absolutely does it shift the burden onto the puc to do the marketing, as opposed -- and to get people to voluntarily want to be part of the program as opposed to an opt out. i'd love to have a debate with anyone about an opt out and whether that's a real chie choir consumers. we debated last year about the yellow pages. that was a big deal for a lot of people. if we provide consumers the initial ability to indicate they want to be part of it i'm for it. if people want to spend more money like supervisor avalos indicated he wanted to do to buy green energy from sf, we should allow people to do that. but to cores the coerce them int program to me is the wrong approach and something i can't support. i will offer those amendments and look forwar
. >> supervisor elsberndwiener. >> supervisor wiener: thank you. i have questions for the puc and for the city attorney. and i will preface this in terms of the amendments offered and it seems like it's the first two that are at issue, since it looks like the the puc is agreeing to the third. to me, i think they're very good arguments on both sides of this, and i know that, you know, there are a lot of people who would like to see this voted up or down, either move forward with the program or we don't move forward with the program and after all the years that the agency has put into this program, i certainly think that they're entitled to know whether the program is important or not. what i don't want to do is send them back with something passed, and signed into law, that's going to cause them to sort of spin around chasing their tails and ultimately the program doesn't happen because what we've inserted in is a poison pill. i'm not interested in putting any poison pills in here so i have some questions, i'm trying to ferret out whether particularly the second one -- i guess one and two, are
came to work in the function bureau at the puc. what was most interesting at the beginning of that, ed had to work where closely with a guy names harry gudersloc. harry was a career civil servant with edges. i would say, it wasn't clear to me, how ed, straight from the consulting world and a noncivil servant. they turned into the puc's own odd couple. i've puzzled over that from time to time. it's pretty simple. they both are tra ordinarily bright. they saw that. they can spot and they don't like phonies. they're both job focused. that made for a powerful relationship, you ended up hiring harold when you moved to the controller's office. that's the first special thing. it has been a hallmark of your continued career, pork working with people with different points of view, i want to thank you for that personally. i also wants to give you a picture, because that's what i do. and this is, as you can probably guess, yet another picture of hetch hetchy. what's unusual about this one, in the lower left and p corner, dan is there with an easel set up painting the very same scene. i thought t
, whereas the sf puc have not commit to buy power from shell unless the commission determines that a quantity of customers sufficient to ensure the financial viability of the program has indicated desire to be included in the initial marketing of the program. finally, to the ordinance, section 3, and the resolution, page 9, the sf puc will include in the clean power sf rates a component to begin recoveringy reserves required in the program in the contract period so customers of clean power sf will bear the cost of the program. again, in that phase in terms of the recovery of the reserves there is not an indication of the level but it is sending a message we would like the program to become sufficient over time. those are motions i'd like to make. i want to thank the puc staff and ed harrington. they've done a great job of shepherding a program through that they thought they could bring to the board and we simply have a few amendments and changes we'd like to suggest. thank you. >> clerk calvillo: to supervisor chu, the clerk's office does not have a copy of those amendments. h
and advocating and advising on this, besides our great puc staff, and our lafco staff, nancy miller, and jason greed a freid as well. i've been listening to the senior organizations, low income people groups and community based organizations input, as well as the electrical workers. we've been communicated to by hunter stern and ibiew on a number of issues. as a father, i want to see a clean air future, clean greener future for my daughter and the future generation. and melanie nutter, head of the department of the environment is here, that we have tremendously ambitious climate action plan goals. and as ed harrington said a moment ago, this will help us at least make a dent on kind of the huge challenge before us, to clean our air, and to make a clean energy future for all san franciscans. that's why i -- that's why, as a member of lafco over the years, since 2009, i've been strongly supportive of coming up with the best possible contract in plan. i wish we had more contractors that put in for this but as ed harrington said we're doing our best with what we have and it should be a good step f
, is the issue of water recycling. and we know that san francisco, the puc, has led this effort, has done a great job in terms of water conservation. but clearly more needs to be done so that we are recycling our water. i'm wondering if you can comment on that issue, and your willingness and commitment to work with puc, going forward with our new general manager, who is here in the audience. thank you, mr. kelly, for being here. i'm wondering if you can comment on that. >> certainly. i'll be happy to. we're all very aware of that. and conservation is very important, recycling is very important. and we lead the state and the city of our conservation. i don't want to get going on prop "d", because i don't want to make a big fuss. but i mean it's ridiculous. i am -- i'm angry that we have to take the time to fight this. i'm angry that if it does pass we have to spend $10 million, where we could be spending that money elsewhere. but i quite agree with you, supervisor, we have to move forward on the recycling. >> co-chair campos: i appreciate that. the other -- i have two more questions that again i w
better. my understanding, having deferred to the great work of the puc, is that this is as good a program as we're going to get, and that in terms of the -- the terms of this agreement that i don't necessarily see how a continuance makes this any better i'm wondering if you have any thoughts about that. >> sure, supervisor. obviously a continuance is a policy call. i understand that. the issues people have, like this is an opt out program, that is state law. a continuance will not change state law. if you're looking for us to try to find another vendor, been there, done that, several times. the only group that's available is shell. the only group that was available to marine that made it work is shell. some day, some time, this may be different. but that is not in any near future. i am not telling you it is the perfect program, but i am tell you it's the only one that we believe is possible in any kind of near-term future. and i don't see how it changes. >> supervisor campos: thank you. >> president chiu: supervisor avalos. >> supervisor avalos: thank you, president chiu. i just want to v
that have been made, the six months of education that we are going to be asking the puc to consider, the fact that we're talking about a de minimus $5 amount if someone wants to opt out, these are i think very positive changes. and i do want to say, in echoing what supervisor kim had stated before, my major concern in recent weeks have been around low income residents, around monolingual residents, around seniors, certainly at last week's hearing i heard loud and clear from my tenants who live in chinatown their concerns about this. and this is why it's so important that the page and a half of amendments that we have to address these concerns are included. let me state a couple of them that were not mentioned by supervisor kim. the language states that the board of supervisors directs the puc to undertake an extensive public education and outreach campaign in multiple languages with particular attention to low income communities to ensure that prior to the opt-out process residents are fully aware of the program, its features and its costs, the amendments also state that we strongly
and it was quite a fight to get to where we are now. so, again, i want to thank the leadership at the puc, mr. harrington, -- fox, and ms. ellis who came by and certainly informed me of this. also, the advocates like eric brooks, green party folks, and others, for staying with this, for this period of time. so although the u.s. never ratified the -- protocol i think it's responsible for us to at least locally to start talking about reaching the goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. so i think it's a conversation that's long overdue. i hate to be corny but there's that bumper sticker, act locally, think globally. i might have it reversed. so anyway i'm really happy to be here today to support this. >> president chiu: supervisor farrell. >> supervisor farrell: thank you, president chiu. and, colleagues, and also want to echo support and thanks to ed harrington. i think he's done an amazing job. i know we will talk about you later but done an amazing job at the puc. you know, when i first heard of cca a number of years ago before being on the board of supervisors, and the notion of creatin
: supervisor wiener. >> supervisor wiener: i do have other questions for the puc. they're not specific to the amendments. so if we're limiting it to the amendments now i can defer those to the chair. >> president chiu: why don't we continue discussing the amendments? no. go ahead, supervisor wiener, if you had additional questions. >> supervisor wiener: orc. okay. also to the puc. >> president chiu: mr. harrington. >> supervisor wiener: there's been some discussion about ultimately a local build-out being financed in some way by the revenues from the cca, whether it's with cash, or through bonding. and supervisor farrell referred to a concern that it just simply would not generate enough cash to be able to bond around it. so if you could respond to that. >> sure, supervisor. when you're trying to go out and build a major facility to produce power, the normal thing to do is to go out and borrow the money, borrow enough money to pay your debt service while constructing the facility and then when the facility is put in place, that revenue that then now generates by selling that power pays
kim. the language states that the board of supervisors directs the puc to undertake an extensive public education and outreach campaign in multiple languages with particular attention to low income communities to ensure that prior to the opt-out process residents are fully aware of the program, its features and its costs, the amendments also state that we strongly urge the puc to eliminate the clean power departure charge for a residential customer that is returning to pg&e services for at least a six month period and that after that time period that the charge be set at no more than a de minimus amount of $5. i wanted to ensure that the puc heard this loud and clear so we drafted language that states that pursuant to our authority under the contractor the board will consider rejecting rates that do not reflect the policies that i described. i want to mention one other clause that says, unless the s sf puc can ensure that low income customers will be offered rates similar to rates near low income customers served by pg&e puc will exclude low income customers in the initial phases
, people against, the puc, that you have to do an opt-out, and an opt-in is not permissible, period. and that's all i ever heard. and so we were evaluating this, or at least i was, do we want to do this, given that state law restricts us from having anything other than an opt out. late last night, and then this morning, was the very first time that i was ever even informed by anyone that, wait, we might actually have the possibility of doing this preopt in, or whatever you want to call it, that that is actually legal. that had not been conveyed to me before then. so -- and then received the language, walked into the board chambers. so i want to be clear this is not a situation where there's been something known, dangling out there six or nine months and then someone perks up in board chambers. in terms of how i learned about it that's how i learned about it. and again if people don't want to continue it, i totally respect that. but for the reasons i stated before, that's why i made the motion. >> supervisor campos. any further discussion? why don't we take a roll call vote on the mo
handed this, and then we just saw a discussion between the makers of the motion and the puc, and there seems to be a disagreement about whether this is viable. but this amendment could also be presented in probably 30 different forms. and maybe all 30 are completely unviable. maybe some of them are viable, and some of them are not. if we don't continue it, that's fine. i accept that and i respect that. but it seems that for an issue that we're considering of this importance, it would make sense to at least know, for sure, whether this is viable or not viable in any form, rather than having language, and then we're scribbling on the paper, sort of the seat of our pants. that was my only point. and the word -- the continuance, i will not take that personally but i am a big believer when you have an issue staring you in the face that over the last number of days has been the main issue being discussed in the public, perhaps the main concern that's being expressed, if there is a way to address it, and to do it in a thoughtful way that works for the puc, then we should see if tha
will be investing funds from puc power enterprise. i think that that investment is capped. i believe the city's exposure under this contract is quite limited, and what we do have an opportunity to do here is to move forward with clean energy. i've looked carefully at what's happened in marin and spoken with two members of the county board of supervisors, one who voted in favor of their cca, one who voted against it. the one who voted against it is now strongly in favor of it. that program has succeeded. of course like every new program, especially the first of its kind, there were bumps in the road. but it has succeeded to the point that other cities are opting in, even cities from outside of the county. i also just want to note that over the years, this board has given repeated direction to the puc to move afford with this. and a few years ago, the puc was considering a proposal that was not particularly strong, and it was set aside. staff has now come forward, and the puc has now come forward with a proposal that i believe everyone, even those who do not support, will say is better, signifi
also just want to note that over the years, this board has given repeated direction to the puc to move afford with this. and a few years ago, the puc was considering a proposal that was not particularly strong, and it was set aside. staff has now come forward, and the puc has now come forward with a proposal that i believe everyone, even those who do not support, will say is better, significantly better than the last one. this will provide competition. it will provide a choice for consumers. i struggled with the opt out issue. and i wish that there were a better way. i wish that we could have some sort of workable opt-in. i thought about potentially voting against this because we didn't have the extra time to figure that out. but on balance, i think that consumers will have a choice. there will be ample opportunity for people to opt out. and for those who, for whatever reason, don't and then decided they want to opt out there will be a very, very modest fee and it will be easy to opt out of the program. this is something that i believe we should try. if i thought this was going to be a
is the discussion about estimated rate increases but the rates need to be approved by the puc. once the rates are approved by the puc the board of supervisors will have 30 days to reject the rates. the contract between shell energy and puc doesn't go into effect until those rates have been finally approved. that would be one piece of this. the other is there is a $6 million appropriation request for the sustainability program. there is not a detailed budget for these programs. we are recommending that $6 million be placed on budget and finance committee reserve, punisheding budget details for the program. another point which hasn't really been talked about in much detail is pg&e has subsequently to the city, looking at the program has proposed their own program that could potentially be competitive with any green energy program the city recommends. we have a couple recommendations. mr. harrington has proposed an alternative to the recommendation, we concur with, which is approve resolution to approve term to up to five years, so that would be different. up to five years. we also do recommend
a lot of puc hearings where i heard professionals from marin county, they are having incredible time to opt out because process is so complicated. it is really not in the best interest of people to opt out. the two of my previous speakers said if you are going to incorporate all the rate papers into this program without their knowledge, a lot of these n% people who do not know what this is about will not be able to understand and will just get their bill. i sincerely hope that you will think about this. and that you will give us an opportunity to really opt out very, very fast. we are mobilizing all asian-americans to opt out. thank you very much. >> thank you. i will call a few more. win ho, chris wright, rob black, arthur feinstein and rob fix. if you have heard your name, line up, please. >> good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen of the committee. jenny cofton. i'm a student at san francisco state university. i'm here because my future is dependent on your decision today n. a time of drought, food shortages and severe unpredictable events, clean power sfs has unprecedented potential
director for the power department. during the tenure at the san francisco puc mr. campbell used his experience in the energy generation field to guide community choice aggregation to the creation of the clean power sf program and for those who have been working on this for so many years they know that -- i think all of us recognize that taking that job was a very courageous ookt on the part of mr. campbell. he crafted several proposals to ensure that the program had technical assistance and service provider in order to launch. he lead the negotiating team to acquire contracts for energy supply as well as back office services, critical launching to the program. he lead countless meetings between the puc and community advocates and the commission and reflected not only what we needed to see as a city agency and address the needs and concerns outlined by the advocates. mr. campbell's monthly updates to this body were instrumental in letting us know what was happening and we especially appreciate the fact that he always took the feedback into consideration and we wouldn't be here wi
of the things that i didn't hear brought up was about solar, because puc was the first agency -- and i think i was its first customer, to make sure that i got solar on my home. i think that not only them working with you, but you have other city departments that they should be working with. you make sure that they work with. because other commissioners, they're doing their thing. but everyone should be working together, especially city planning and department of public works. because when buildings are going to be built, it should be stated that every building have solar. you know, i was interviewed by kpix, and i know i'm all over the world, when i -- when i got my solar. my electrical bill is $4.19 a month. everybody should have solar. now, i'm low income. i'm a senior citizen. and i'm on social security. and this is the best thing in the world that can happen to the citizens of san francisco. and i also wanted to say to you that i have worked with these commissioners. and some are new, to me, i will say. about my community, bayview hunters point, as you know, bayview hunters point is where
exciting time. i've been with the puc for nine years. and i tell you that the commissioners that we have in place is a great group of individuals. they work together. they have dialogue. they may not all be on the same page, but at the end of the day, we have a better product because of it. and i tell you, the three that's coming up, all bring a special flavor to the whole enterprise. ann caen, i can't say enough about her. she's been with the department for such a long time. she has all the institutional knowledge. in fact sometimes she's actually pulled documents out of her filing system to sew what we did in the past. francesca was one that i actually facebooked her when the opportunity came, because i knew that she would be a great addition. and i've worked with her in the past. vince courtney is my brother in the unions, and he really has helped us roll out the water system improvement program, and reach out to labor. and so all three of them have been significant in the advancement of the puc. and i don't know if we can keep moving the way that we're moving without all three of the
significant in the advancement of the puc. and i don't know if we can keep moving the way that we're moving without all three of them. so thank you. >> chair kim: thank you, mr. kelly. >> good afternoon, supervisors. phil ginsberg, general manager of the park and rec department. the fact that he has so many people here, both from labor and management, from public power, and public parks, from the south side of the city and the north side of the city is a testament to who he is. he is someone who is able to really bring people together, and he is an incredibly giving public servant. i've had the pleasure of knowing him for well over 10 years in a variety of capacities and now i consider him -- and local 261, the closest of partners at the recreation and parks. vince is a fierce advocate for what is right, he's a fierce advocate for social justice, but he's also able to keep his eye on really the big picture. and vince is someone who is focused on accountability. he's focused on making sure that government delivers the services that we promise the public. and i very much respect him about tha
to thank the puc and general manager harrington, all the staff for the fantastic work over many years to put together a program that can lead us toward a clean energy future. so i wanted to thank you for that. it is an honor to work for a city that has such excellent staff and a department. in answer to your question i did want to highlight the carbon reduction goals so you have some context about what we are working to achieve, where clean power sf does fit in. this is from the environmental perspective. we have a long history of setting up climate policy and very ambitious goals here in the city. starting in 2002 where there was a resolution that said our first target, which was to reduce greenhouse emission reductions by 20% below 1990 levels by the end of this year. that was set in 2002. there was a climate action plan that highlighted a number of actions that could be taken to get there, procuring local green power was certainly one. in 2008 there was a climate change ordinance passed that set additional targets beyond 2012 including reducing emissions by 20% by 2017, 40% by 2025
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 259 (some duplicates have been removed)